NTHMP MMS Meeting(NGDC: Boulder, Colorado) August 9-11, 2011

NTHMP MMS Meeting(NGDC: Boulder, Colorado) August 9-11, 2011

NTHMP MMS Meeting(NGDC: Boulder, Colorado) August 9-11, 2011

Tuesday, 8/9

MMS Co-Chairs:

Rick Wilson () – California Geological Survey

Marie Eble () –NOAA’s PMEL


-Rick Wilson – CGS: CA engineering geologist; Seismic Hazard Mapping Program

-Marie Eble–PMEL: DART data analysis

-Joseph Zhang - tsunami mitigation mapping (OR) - hydrodynamics

-Heather McCullough – NGDC: hazards databases

-Jim Kirby –U of Delaware: hydrodynamic modeler; FUNWAVE code

-Juan Horrillo – TAMU: tsunamimodeler - landslide specific

-Aurelio Mercado –U of Puerto Rico: preparing new generation of tsunamiflood maps; chair of ICG (Caribbean); risk analysis

-Kelly Carignan - NGDC: builds DEMs

-Lisa Taylor - NGDC: Lead of Coastal Services Team; works with DEM group

-Susan McLean – NGDC: Marine Geology & Geophysics Division Chief

-Steve Kirby - USGS: chair of USGSTsunamiSource Working Group; Natural Hazards strategic science planning team

-Stephan Grilli –U of Rhode Island: hydrodynamics/wave modeler - coastal hazards;inundationmapping for East Coast; benchmarking for MMS

-Volker Roeber –U of Hawaii: storm surge, hurricane inundation; hydrostatic modeling

-Tim Walsh –Washington: chief hazards geologist; works with PMEL

-Roger Hansen –U of Alaska-Fairbanks: seismology aspects of NTHMP; responsible for AK inundation maps

-Dmitry Nicolsky –Alaska: modeling/ benchmarking

-Jane Hollingsworth –NOAA/NWS: new Tsunami ProgramDirector(NOAA)

-George Priest –Oregon: geologist; replacement for Rob Witter

-Kara Sterling – WC/ATWC: replacement for Bill Knight (more in fed report below)

MMS Overview: (refer to Rick’s document)

-MMS includes modelers, geoscientists, geologists from state, local and federal governments, and academia; however, the group goes beyond the NTHMP “rules and procedures” for just hazard identification; we're very goal oriented and aware of how the NTHMP impacts communities, serving as emergency managers in some cases. We need to work closely with communities in order to be more efficient and effective.

-Collaboration with other agencies is vital to understanding the needs of communities (i.e., marine, land use, public, media) and to communicate effectively with these agencies.

-There's overlap with both the mitigation committee and warningcommittee; many of the members are involved with emergency response / managers group –we need to be able to translate information from the warning centers; outreach is also of extreme importance.

-Think of MMS as not just a group of scientists working on research/modeling, but also as those working with other teams / partners. It's alsobeneficial that MMS has much diversity between members.

-It’s important for the group to provide a useable service. (Marie)

Jane Hollingsworth (Introduction)

-Background: NWS operational forecaster. She has been with NOAA for her entire career and originally worked at DEN WFO. Afterwards, she movedto WCM (outreach and education), and then Meteorologist in Charge at Reno, NV WFO.

-Operatesclosely with Emergency Managers.

-Participated on national flooding assessment (lead): major result was the need for inundation mapping

-Focusing on more integrated efforts - not just tsunamis, but river flooding, hurricanes, storm surge, etc.

-Works closely with TWCs, Storm Ready, more involved with inundation mapping.

-Given recent events, there’s much visibility on The Hill (Congressman Wolf –requested the East and West coast conferences to raise awareness - Q&A, presentations); West coast conference should occur in late Oct. NTHMP should be heavily involved.

-IT Modernization project at TWCs - using AWIPS technology / framework - $6-8 million investment; to be deployed Spring 2013.

  • Kara: The differences between the PTWC and WC/ATWC in-house systems are many; she looks forward to using a moreintegrated system. It’s important to have a system that can be easily transferable, sustainable when people leave/retire.

-Budget: spectrum funding (typically $10-12 million/year -- expires end of FY12); next year - 15% cut (equals $3-5 million cut).

-George suggests that considerable savings could be accrued to the tsunami warning system by implementing the National Academy of Sciences recommendation to consolidate to one warning center, perhaps collocated with USGS National Earthquake Center in Colorado. The resulting synergy between earthquake experts at USGS and tsunami experts at NOAA would result in more accurate and timely warnings. The resulting discussion concluded with general agreement on potential usefulness of this approach.

-George points out that if NTHMP is eliminated in FY13 so the NOAA tsunami warning system remains fully funded, there will effectively be no support by NOAA for mitigation of devastation from locally generated tsunamis known to threaten the West Coast and Alaska (the warning system is ineffective for local tsunamis). NTHMP-supported education and inundation mapping is the first line of defense limiting loss of life and property to local tsunamis.

State Reports

California (Rick)

-3 recent events have impacted the state (2009/10/11- Samoa/Chile/Japan)

-CGS Mapping and Modeling can be broken down into 3 groups: evacuation and emergency planning; maritime planning; land-use planning (funded by NTHMP) – 120 maps total

-Modeling uses MHW; new maps were released at AGU as draft for review before being released to the public.

-Higher accuracy / more coverage than 1st generation maps; 2nd generation maps use 30 and 90 meter models; coverage is extended onshore using high resolution DEMs; work with local emergency managers to get feedback and allow time for integration into evacuation plans.

-Modeling and mapping at Catalina Island in the next couple months; also Lake Tahoe in the next year (many articles appearing about tsunami hazards in that area)

-Currently evaluating whether there’s a need to upgrade maps on north coast based on high-slip events (i.e., Tohoku event).

-Looking at comparisons -- whether to change evacuation zones and inundation lines.

-Need to evaluate harbors to determine if/when boats need to be evacuated during an event; working with FEMA to create hazard maps (hopefully within 3 years); using video to determine currents – used to validate/calibrate with MOST (should be useful for other modelers); can also be used for emergency response and future construction (damage to docks, etc.)

-Offshore safety zones (developing maps and guidance); what should be done during advisories (how long to stay in safety zones – offshore distances for different types/sizes of boats); working with Coast Guard. First analyzingpilot study areas: San Diego Bay/Port of LA/Santa Cruz/Crescent City/Ventura regions, then start mapping statewide.

-Land-use Planning Maps – looking at probabilistic maps that require site-specific investigation of hazards; using Japan data to determine building structure requirements for tsunami.

-2011 Tohoku event destroyed Crescent City harbor – Santa Cruz harbor was also damaged; strong currents (up to 15kts); low tide during main waves, so less damage than could have occurred. 1 fatality. 24hrs of wave activity: some peak waves occurring every couple of hours (worst damage from high tide waves in some locations).

-Pre- and post-tsunami field team and clearinghouse: very beneficial because there were scientists in the field observing the tsunami; a report will be available in October summarizing data points,activity and damage.

-tsunami.ca.gov /

Oregon (Priest)

-Damage from distance tsunamis has been minimal (minor harbor damage – current jetting effects), so Oregon mainly focuses on local tsunamis generated from the offshore Cascadiasubduction zone.

-Phase 3inundation mapping:High resolution (generally 5-10 m but down to 3 m computational grids in dry land inundation areas); completed for entire south coast and Cannon Beach on the north coast. The Oregon approach is to do detailed anchor studies to understand Cascadia sources for the north and south coasts; inundation mapping is currently proceeding in Tillamook County on the north central coast, followed in 2012 by Clatsop County on the north coast, and finishing with all central coast counties by 2013.

-North coast anchor study at Cannon Beach: Determined minimum Cascadia subduction zone fault slip equals ~14-15 m to emplace 3 mapped (by Rob Witter) tsunami deposits in local marshes over the last ~1000 yrs; analyzed ~37 Cascadia tsunami sources; found that there’s a natural break in tsunami size at the ~95th percentile confidence level that all Cascadia tsunami variability is covered (99th percentile inundation and runup is much larger); this break is useful for engineering decisions such as building vertical evacuation refuges. Oregon formed a stakeholder advisory committee(EM, city planners, fire chiefs, etc.) to determine evacuation map standards for the Oregon coast (oregontsunami.org); they chose to evacuate to the 99th percentile inundation boundary.

-Oregon evacuation map standard is now a two-toned map (orange for distant tsunami and yellow for local tsunami evacuation zone); in both Spanish and English; all planning is local (grassroots).

-South coast anchor study at Bradley Lake-Bandon:determined minimum Cascadia subduction zone fault slip to place known tsunami deposits in Bradley Lake.

-Using paleoseismology for modeling constraints: Coastal lake deposits (Bradley Lake) allow estimate of minimum Cascadia subduction zone slip to get tsunamis into the lake in AD 1700 (12-13 m) and for the most landward ancient shoreline (8-9 m slip); offshore turbidites as proxies for Cascadia earthquakes indicate that half of the ~40-42turbidites record large, full-margin events expressed in offshore cores as large sand layers, while half are much thinner and spatially limited silt/mud layers;

-A new set of evacuation maps is now available for outreach on the south coast and at Cannon Beach on the north coast.

-Regional Cascadia Simulations – Illustrate high variability of tsunami amplitude variation at 50m depth; variation is from shelf bathymetry (submarine banks tend to amplify tsunamis).

-Using LIDAR data for modeling – detailed bare earth digital elevations, buildings, vegetation and tonal changes. Oregon tsunami simulations using the SELF modeldo not make use of the LiDAR buildings because most buildings are wood-frame and would be swept away by locally generated tsunamis; SELFE uses zero friction (friction does not seem to change results except at the very edge of inundation – based on 1964 Alaska tsunami event/sensitivity studies); only very high resolution data could match the 1964 event observations.

-Using theoretical fault models and observations of modern tsunamis, it is apparent that local tsunami inundation is controlled primarily by the maximum slip spots; in northern Cascadia, the turbidite record for full-margin events is consistent with large release of strain followed by long intervals of seismic quiet; Oregon Cascadia tsunami sources are computed using the standard Okada (1985) point source formulation so that realistic fault curvature and slip variation can be simulated..

-Based on turbidite records, the AD1700 Cascadia earthquake and tsunami is only a moderate or “average” event compared to other full-margin Cascadia earthquakes, although it likely had a moment magnitude of ~9.0; the AD 1700 tsunami deposit was also small to moderate relative to other Cascadia tsunami deposits, possibly because it arrived during a neap tide.

-Extra-extra-large (XXL)Cascadia subduction zone event release 1200 years of accumulated slip deficit (~40 m of fault slip).

-Maximum slip along Oregon coast is probably centered on the hard rock/shelf break rather than in soft Pleistocene sediments on the outer part of the accretionary wedge; the difference between the “small” and XXL events is especially large for inundation distance and runup on step-like, ramping coastal terraces where the XXL tsunamis swash up to high elevations.

-Evacuation mapping is based on XXL event and a hypothetical magnitude 9.2 earthquake with in the Gulf of Alaska with ideal directivity to the Oregon coast and amplified uplift at the source (this source was developed at NOAA-PMEL).

Sue: Has the Tokoku event affected nuclear facilities along the coastal states?

-Rick: facilities on the California coast are being examined – CGS will probably be involved with USGS and review reports, etc. but they are still waiting on the final data to come from Japan.

-Priest: feels that the Japan event verified what they already believed about teletsunamis along the Oregon coast and the need to plan for large Cascadia fault slip events on the order of ~40 m.

-Stephan: East coast is starting to reevaluate nuclear sites (for both hurricanes and tsunamis) – in particular, investigating seawall heights.

TASK for all: Identify what are the future mapping needs beyond 2013.

Washington (Tim)

-Everett (Lake Washington) in progress.

-Previously modeled with categories 2-2.1 – now modeling with categories 2.6-2.7

-Puget Sound: most of the modeling is complete.

-New online resource: all tsunami and inundation maps, geologic sites, etc.
(WA Interactive Geologic Map)

-Also examining ground shaking effects / loose geologic units (geotechnical data)

  • WSliq ()– conservative model that predicts liquefaction zones; follows areas of fill and Holocene alluvial; also includes landslide susceptible areas (planning for evacuation route problem areas – will need to reevaluate evacuation routes and safety areas).

-What about areas that do not have high evacuation areas? Going to communities (Long Beach (resident population of 6000) – spread out evenly along waterfront) and Ocean Shores peninsulas) and evaluating where to put vertical evacuation facilities; locations are based on how far one can reasonably walk to a site (“walking circles”) – fragile populations live on this coast (older communities).

  • Consulted with an urban designer to meet with community to ‘fit’ structures into the current landscape(i.e., a berm that can be used for other uses (stadium/bleachers); building structures into golf courses)

-Active faults (i.e., Seattle) that go through Puget sound – where 2/3 of WA population exists -- have evidence of previous uplift/inundation;therefore they created an evacuation map for both the Tacoma and Seattle areas.

-Modeled for Everett – current speeds are more relevant than inundation.

-Lake Washington tsunamis: there’s potential for both earthquake and landslide related tsunamis (history of these types of tsunamis exist); also important for floating bridge structure/engineering (many exist in Washington).

-San Juan Islands: creating a grid to include multibeam bathymetry and LIDAR;will also be used to map new faults.

-Plans: create category 3+ maps for the outer shores with available LIDAR.

Hawaii (Volker)

-More people die from tsunamis than from any other natural hazard event in Hawaii.

-Hawaii is not exposed to any nearby tsunami source; however, any event around the Pacific Ocean could impact Hawaii since it’s in the center of the basin.

-Modeling: inundation envelope contain 5 major events; using MSL and high tide (some area show more inundation at MSL due to reefs, etc.); modeled at 1 friction factor (difficult to determine accurate friction factor for coral reefs – not necessarily due to roughness but due to obstacles).

-Also added hypothetical events

Oahu – population: 1million people (mainly along coastlines); Big island is difficult to model due to steep seafloor; Maui modeling should be completed by the end of the year; develops own DEM; 4 nested grids

-Uses NEOWAVE model on one CPU but would like to model in parallel; 10 meter resolution; very high resolution LIDAR data.

-Modeling results are well matched with observations from the envelope events; slight differences may be due to change in topography over time.

-Provides ArcGIS to civil defense, including flowdepth; KML contains information on infrastructure (what facilities might be affected).

-Tohoku: tide level was MSL (tide level range is approx. 2-3ft – fringing reefs had damping effect – total loss was approx. $5million (most damage to harbors).

-Civil defense claims 3 hours of preparation time before tsunami arrival.

-Model does well matching tide gauges and DART(Tohoku event).

-For Japan, they purchased bathymetry data (30m).

-Is the rupture momentum accelerating or not (which percentage actually moves the water? – the impulse wave).

-The plan is to finish all the mapping by next year.

Puerto Rice (Aurelio)

-Uses MOST (older version since the basic model is the same).

-Along with flood maps they wantto develop a database of scenarios all around the island to notify decision makers.

-6 historical tsunami events.

-All faults are shallow – set at 4 km.

-PR has very steep slopes along coast; does a hydrostatic model like MOST deliver the best results given the bathymetry available?

-Juan: landslide (MONA earthquake 1918) – modeled for northwest coast of PR; would like to integrate all possible landslides into model

  • 3 nested grids (down to 1/3 sec – 10m – resolution)
  • major issue is passing output from 3D to 2D model – it’s best to pass the info at the domain where NEOWAVE takes over

-Some simulations have errors – hopefully in 2 months the new generation of maps will be completed – category 3?